No obviously not, but most people have opportunities to spend more on health care: to treat more minor conditions, to purchase more expensive treatments, to spend longer with doctors or see more of them, to purchase lower-efficacy treatments, even to go to doctors’ offices with fancier lobbies.
"Patients have a motive to consume as much as they can ". What fucking world do you live in. Do you imagine people will think " I gotta get me some free chemotherapy & a weekly colonoscopy"?
Comments
to. This is pretty basic econ.
Potentially related: the US has one of the lowest ages (45) at which colonoscopies are considered preventative and are covered for free.
For example, you go the doctor for back pain. They prescribe physical therapy and first line pain meds. They don't work.
In singlepayer systems, you may be out of options. Here, you have more expensive options (that may not work).
stats and radiologists say they wouldn't benefit, but people do not believe it.
fancier lobbies what godforsaken clown fuck universe are you posting from bro
🤷🏻♂️
in canada it works more like, you can get the MRI tomorrow out of pocket
Those aches and pains that could signify serious conditions if treated early? Don't worry, just grin and bear it!
undoubtedly new tech will have high demand and if gatekept, corruption will occur
lol.. do you even hear yourself? You're insufferable in your lack of compassion for others.
They get major conditions found and treated early before they become major!
You surely had to stretch to turn that into a bad thing. Oh my god
Without profit motive, providers might encourage more preventative care rather than a pill.
You have to remove the profit motive.
I was reacting to your suggestion that a private market could be kept in an case.
Vital services must be accessible to all or else you’re putting a price on one’s life.
Personally, healthcare is the same as police and fire. A public good.
I don't need the top level of care at a GP check up, I just need access to care
I think it'd be worth spending more time on describing what would be GOOD reforms, not just why terrible ideas are bad.
Stancil is just pointing out that a lot of your complaints with private insurance are also complaints you'd have with public insurance. Bureaucracy is never perfect and expensive treatments will always be rationed.
Single-payer will be better but the Star Trek Future is a post-SCARCITY society, not just a post-capitalism society.
Furthermore, one of the reasons so much treatment is prohibitively expensive is *because* of hiked-up prices for insurance companies.
- Will Stancil
"A stitch in time saves nine" and all that
Overuse of medical resources is far from the only problem, but it’s part of the problem, and a lot of it isn’t on patients.
https://bsky.app/profile/dreamerhyena.bsky.social/post/3ldyr6dbcsc2n
https://bsky.app/profile/dragoneer.bsky.social/post/3kyyhxti7en24
https://www.propublica.org/article/anthony-olson-thomas-weiner-montana-st-peters-hospital-leukemia
/1
/2
/3x
In my country they estimated that *with current healthcare levels* 25 to 33% would be working in healthcare in 2050.
In every other industry we would simply acknowledge that greater demand facilitates greater supply. Why are we pretending that's somehow not the case with this one?
Not the current system, of course. But there has to be an allocation method.
Imagine two healthcare systems. Both can access drug A.
In the first system, nobody gets drug B.
In the other system, you can spend two hours on the phone explaining why a patient really needs drug B.
Which system is better?